Lucky...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml A non story huh? better tell CBS That. Are you sure that isn't CNNBC?

If ya didn't recognoze my profile as levity/sarcasm/false, then...... So am I. That explains volumes. I never called you either, it was a generalization. But ya can't figure that out...... What's that about takes one to know one? JK Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The idea here was not to focus on the tard statement, but the fact that federal Republican politicians actually interrupt the congress and even the president in the most formal of sessions.

I wasn't really talking dirty tricks here and of course both use them, I can cite far more from the right tho. But here I'm talking disruption as part of the protocol of high-level political behavior. That's not a dirty trick, that's just immature and at that level inexcusable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and House Democratic leaders struck a last-minute deal Sunday with abortion foes to secure the final few votes needed to remake America's health care system, writing a climactic chapter in a century-old quest for near universal coverage. Done deal.

And your focus on my grammar rather than the substantive message that federal Republican politicians are rule-breaking when they don't get their way as a protocol of behavior shows the typical strawman-initiating Republican that I knew you were. Address the Republican House members and/or Joe Wilson. Oh, you don't wanna; precisely - your acquiesence is shouting your feelings.

I'm on the fence

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_protest They are just little babies who whine and disrupt when they don't get thier way. For the US Reps to cheer and clap when an ahole disrupts a session is beyond words. Of course Joe "you lie" Wilson is a hero for his televised disruption of the presidents address to congress, so I expect little and am never really dissapointed. This reinforces my opinion that the Republican mentality is merely that of a teenage boy; pathetic.

Right now they're voting on rules and procedures, but when it comes to a vote on the main bill, will it pass?

I wasn't expecting such a cogent (look it up) response to the reality of deterrence theory. Too bad you weren't born 200 years ago, but by today's standards and laws, you cannot kill or harm someone in most states to defend property. Now if you try to stop them from taking it and they assault you, then you can defend yourself, but shooting someone in teh back, other than hillbilly states, constitutes assault/murder, etc.

Are you asking for, "a friend?"

Ah yes there you go again... as the man once said. The trouble is WHO you guys label as liberals, which since the man who said that phrase in the debate took office, is anyone who does not GOOSE-STEP to the same drummer as those on the far fringes of what was once a Grand Old Party It is truely sad that there are people in this country who really do believe that kind of jingoistic knee jerk BULLSHIT when it comes spewing out of the mouths of your great leaders like Lush Rimjob the Great. It is even sadder when all the mindless little dittoheads(meaning can't think for themselves) parrot the same crap over and over and believe it thru over usage. Membership is free, it just requires an empty soul with no conscience (sociopathy).

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. From the party of Ollie "I don't recall" North, we give you more blatant ambiguity. See, people who want the right to change answers will never look you in the eye and give you a yes or no; on the internet all I need is one of the latter set, apparently I get both a yes and a no from Mike North.

That was never indispute between us, just that it IS punishment and NOT deterrence, that is the issue. You're confusing deterrence with incapacitation, it is the latter, the former is a fairly tale. Right, you incapactiate them, to deter them you have to change their mind, not merely their address. Deterrence must have the element of choice, merely incapacitating them doesn't change their mind, it just disables or incapacitiates them. You might hear of 2 types of deterrence under the fairy tale: - General Deterrence - This is when I get punsihed and others see this and decide not to go down that path. - Specific or Special Deterrence - This is when I get punished and I don't want to get punished again, so I change my mind on that behavior again. There is no specific deterrence with the death penalty, there is no choice. And to assert general deterrence with the DP you would have to show a decrease in the murder rate as executions rise, and there is no constant, repeatable data for this. For multi-time offenders, but too much jail time as with drug crimes does nothing to help the matter either. How about education while in prison for 1st offenders so they have a stake in society when they get out, rather than dump them on the streets so they go back to their old ways? Of course that would be yucky and liberal so we'll just advocate the cycle and not give them education so they can get out and revictimize another innocent person; sounds like a conservative wet dream. Of course. But teh other isssue is that of enforcement. I had a dirty pig play a role in the robbing of my house, his dept refused to even write a report on any of the people or the incident. Basically, the country is a toilet, is it worse than all? No. better than some, worse than others; it is what it is, just don't get absorbed by the deterrence rhetoric; it's BS.

This is rhetoric, it answers nothing and illustrates you have no answer for the issues proposed to you. There were no assertions of perfection, allegations of perfection or imperfection, this is simply more rhetoric to further illustrate you have no answer for the issues, just, well, obviously rhetoric. RealY? - Clinton was impeached by the Republican Speaker of the House Gingrinch for being one not of family values, then Newt http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm does the same and more, adultery, draft didging, smoking dope, etc and all he gets is praise from t he right; guys like you. - Scooter libby committed and wasCRIMINALLY CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL COURT of perjury and obstruction for outing a federal agent; GWB then commuted his jail. Cheney was pissed that Bush didn't give him a full pardon and even wrote a book about it. Now, let's look at Clinton, he was impeached and the conviction failed in a POLITICAL TRIAL for obstriction and perjury, but Newt led the charge against Clinton for doing the thinsg Newt did and does; his Republican puppets followed suit. - Larry Craig. Solicited gay sex by tapping his foot under an airport shitter stall. The Repub response: you need to step down. LC's response: No. Repub response: OK. Where was the impeachment? Where was the congressional investigation? He did admit to lewd conduct or something to that effect, where was the fallout? So Larry, "wide stance" Craig goes on to tap under shitter stalls once again. - I could add more, these are 3 huge and shining examples of failrly recent Republican hypocrisies that you will minimize or deny. That's the problem, they aren't gutless, they stand lockstepped and brave, that is one thing Michale Moore just said and is right; the R's stand virtually if not absolutley solid and ramrod shit down the country's throat. An example is found in their Reconciliation record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress) Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents ... So once again, in your quest to say, "they do it, we do it; it's all a wash," you have yet again been wrong. The R's are not gutless but have an agenda that of representing the rich in our society; don't confuse the two. Now if you mean representing the rich is an act that is gutless, I agree, but I think you mean they have been too timid, which you are wrong. Evidence of that is found with the HC Bill and the public option the heavily D House is with what was 59 senators (58+1 indep for the 1st year of Obama), right? BRILLIANT. We're having to fight out and diminish this issue with one of the biggest majorities in a long time and you say we just get what we want. Shall we talk Bush's tax cuts 10 years ago? Shall we talk fascist pig Ronnie and his massive tax cuts from 1981 to 1986 he took the top brkt from 70% to 28% in 3 cuts, driving up the debt and you say that was a Dem thing? That's what teh Dems wanted? I thought Dems were about tax increases (and they are)? - Patriot Act and all the wiretapping under GWB? - All the civil rights acts and SCOTUS decisions under the liberal Sup Ct in the 1960's? - Union busting under that fascist pig and GWB? - Most growth of the economy under Clinton of all time? - Under Clinton he took 7% unemp and left

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_stewart_udall This is a man that enacted change to help people. RIP.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries? Of course burglars need to be jailed, but to pretend deterrence works as you've stated is also absurd. Maybe; but there's a difference between "encouragement" and "non-deterrence". I've found that as much as deterrence is popularly over-valued by some, it's also popularly under-valued by others. I'd think that for people (especially adults) who are either less-than-hardened or less-than-desperate, there is some deterrent effect to stiff penalties for residential burglary. I also agree that an open policy of very soft penalties for residential burglary might very well encourage some to attempt it who might otherwise be deterred by the likelihood of jail time if they're caught. In order to encourage it a person must "be wired" in such a way to embrace the idea of entering another person's house for the purpose of taking their stuff. I just don't think soft laws would encourage one bit a person "not wired" like that and "rewire" them to be thiefs. Laws encourage or deter very few, other than tax laws. Most people don't have the capacity to steal and do not need deterring, some are just rotten people and cannot be deterred, teenagers are in the fringe and deterrence can work.

As I thought, you claiming 8 tie-break votes was minimal, Cheney's 8 puny votes as you referred to ranks him 11 of 47 as most to least tie-break votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Vice_Presidents%27_tie-breaking_votes So once again you're wrong in your mitigation of Cheney's tie-break claiming it was minimal, hence more eating away your theory that the Dems had control of congress. Oh wait, you're still undecided as to whether you want to answer that one.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. No, your unwillingness to simply state an answer defines you. You rarely post supporting data and when you do, you post an image and not a website. Mike, you are nearly alone if you think you're fooling anyone. And to think you likely called Kerry a flip-flopper.

At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question.

At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not?

Talk about the king of non-response; it doesn't get any bolder that Mikey. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I guess the best we will ever get is you not stepping into the pile of shit about the Dems controlling congress from 07-09. Here it is again in case you get the counrage to substantively reply: Have, yes, had on 07-09; no. That was your point that I was referring to. Now if you want to take current performance and act as if Obama inherited a stable economy, then you're just Mike being Mike. Just like the mess your hero fascist Ronnie left, GWB's was worse, yet you want to act like it's just a normal economy; never let your blinders slip - I know you won't. Now, care to address your point of the Dems having control of both chambers from 07-09? Didn't think so, so now the strawman comes about the current congressional control. Oh, BTW, you are right about that and due to that we should see a HC bill coming . Read above, same answer. I wrote and you responded to: So you see, Mike isn't a bad guy, just real bad at math saying the Dems had control of both chambers of congress. See the underlined, "had?" We were referring to 07-09, not currently, but don't let that get in the way of your strawman. BTW, your double plagiarism is taken as a compliment. 8 is huge considering Bush didn't veto anything for the first 5.5 years (probably unprecedented) meaning congress ran the country with a boob at the wheel. I'll be the unmike and post them. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm We've had a president/VP since 1789. for round numbers sake, let's take the end of disaster, the GWB era at 2009. That's 220 years or 55 each 4-year terms. According to the site I posted, 244 VP tie breakers have been cast, that's 4.44 per 4-year term, so Cheney's, "STAGGERING total of EIGHT" is barely under the average of 4.44 per 4-year term. If we factored in the median and mode we would find Cheney cast on the high side considering Adams cast 29 votes as VP to Washington, skewing the mean from 4.44 to the median and mode somewhere near a likely 3-3.5, putting Cheney's 8 votes over 2 terms above the median and mode. Watch the tea baggers lately? Now who's the victim, listening to their whining I don't get your assertion.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries? Of course burglars need to be jailed, but to pretend deterrence works as you've stated is also absurd.

Yea but do you see the hypocrisy there? The Christian right says life begins at conception, yet the protection of life, including medical, belongs to the parents, not the state. So you're asking the gov to step in to defend a fetus from day-1, yet after it's born for the state to stay away. The same argument could be made with healthcare as the issue. As for the freedom of religion, the 1st states that the state will not estblish a religion, not that anyone can practice whatever religion regrdless of harm to another person, esp a child in this case. So that expression is taken out of context so many times. There are so many fringe nutjobs who would virtually sacrifice their kids for jebus, or another yet-to-be-proven diety that the state has no option but to step in when notified of these sometimes Jonestown-caliber freaks.

fixed it for you Is it goat or sheep; or both?

I hate to see a child not get needed treatment and I don't think the state should be involved either as people should have a choice as to what is IMPORTANT to the parents and the family Yea, that's why I called CPS on a family where the father twice punched his stepson in the mouth. I thought the state should step in, they did and that never happened again. The protection of the child FAR outweighs the privacy / complete autonomy of the family.